Trends Driving the Loyalty Marketing Industry Frank Landman What it Takes to Build a Highly Secure FinTech … Frank is a freelance journalist who has worked in various editorial capacities for over 10 years. He covers trends in technology as they relate to business. Some of the technology we now use on a daily basis would seem unreasonably futuristic to someone living 20 years ago. IoT devices are becoming plentiful, with almost any electronic device or appliance now offering an internet connection and a host of onboard features, and the average person can access practically all the world’s information with a miniature computer that fits in their pocket.When you think about that impressive cycle of technological development, it’s not hard to imagine a future where cyborgs—human/machine hybrids previously exclusive to the realm of science fiction—walk among us. But what if those cyborgs are already here?What Is a Cyborg?Let’s start by defining what we mean when we use the term “cyborg.” Different people will use the term in different contexts, but in general, we use the term to describe a being that uses both organic and technological systems to operate. The name itself is a portmanteau of “cybernetic” and “organism.”Depictions of cyborgs in pop culture usually have telltale signs indicating their nature; for example, the Borgs in Star Trek are shown with wires sprouting from their bodies and electronics embedded within their bodies, and the DC comics superhero Cyborg has a body made mostly of metal. However, a cyborg need not be so obvious. If we can agree the term “cyborg” applies to any organic being that relies at least partially on technological components, the relationship doesn’t need to be 50/50, nor does it need to be visually obvious. Instead, almost any instance of a human being relying on some kind of technology consistently could be described as cyborg-like.The Case for Modern CyborgsWhy would someone argue that today’s humans are cyborgs, even though most of us look nothing like our sci-fi counterparts?It comes down to how we use our technology. Imagine a hypothetical scenario where you have a computer embedded in your brain. This computer has access to the internet and can give you the answer to any question answerable on the web, all internally. Just by thinking it, you can look up the name of an actor you remember from an old movie, or refresh your memory on the lyrics to your favorite song. Because you’re accessing knowledge that exists outside your brain, and you’re relying on an embedded technological construct, most people would consider this an example of a cyborg.But here’s the thing—we’re practically already doing this. Most of us have a smartphone on us at all times, and if we have a question that needs answered, we automatically begin entering it into a search engine, or if we’re home, we’ll simply ask the smart speaker we have conveniently nearby. What’s the difference between our dependency on technology being external or internal? If the interface is somehow internal and subjective, existing only in our minds, is that somehow fundamentally different than having a device at our fingertips?Here’s another example to consider. Imagine you have an LED screen embedded in your arm. It gives you a heads-up display (HUD) that helps you understand your current surroundings, and can even help you navigate to your next destination. Most people would also consider this a cyborg-like upgrade—yet wouldn’t consider constantly relying on a GPS device to be a cyborg-like upgrade. Both scenarios offer human beings the same improved access to information, both are optional, and both are constantly available.Add to that the rising trend of technology as a kind of fashionable accessory. Metallic enhancements like grillz are becoming more commonplace, and wearable tech like smart watches are seeing sales in record numbers. People are slowing starting to integrate tech with their own bodies, rather than simply carrying it around with them (which would have been more than enough to qualify us as cyborgs).Then again, most of us have an intuitive sense for what “counts” as part of us and what doesn’t. We count our hands and feet as part of our own bodies, and our own identity, but we don’t count the tablet because that exists outside of us. One could argue that until the technology is impossible to remove (such as a surgically implanted device), or otherwise overcomes this intuitive hurdle, we shouldn’t consider ourselves to be cyborgs.Perhaps more importantly, why does this debate matter in the first place? We rely on technology to go about our daily lives regardless of whether you call us cyborgs or not, so what impact could this discussion possibly have?EthicsDetermining whether or not we’re cyborgs and evaluating what it means to be a cyborg is important for setting ethical and legal standards for the next generation. For example, right now, consumers and political groups are becoming increasingly aware of how their data is being used, and are fighting for more transparency from the companies collecting and using these data. Corporate leaders argue that their products and services are purely optional, and if customers aren’t willing to give up their personal data, they can choose not to use those services. But if we’re considered cyborgs, it means technology is a fundamental part of us—and a practical necessity for living in the modern world. At that point, a cyborg would have less of a choice than a typical human being in which tech services they use, and would, therefore, need greater protections.It’s also important to consider the distinctions between cyborgs and conventional human beings now, while the technology is still in its infancy. Once we start developing cybernetic limbs that are more powerful than human limbs, we’re going to face much tougher questions. Should enhanced individuals be allowed to participate in the Olympic games? Should they be given restrictions on how to use those enhanced limbs? Should they be offered greater protections? There aren’t any clear answers to these questions, but that’s the point. Considering precise definitions and ethical dilemmas isn’t going to help us once we’re deep into a new era; the time is now to start ironing out these problems and developing new tech responsibly.AcceptanceIt’s also important to start easing people into the idea of being a cyborg. Intuitively, the majority of the population would probably agree that becoming a cyborg would be “creepy” or strange. They don’t like the idea of giving up any part of their identity—especially if that part makes them uniquely human. They might resist installing a brain-computer interface (BCI) based on the idea that they want their mind to be independent and wholly organic.This, by itself, isn’t necessarily a problem, but it could lead to technological stagnation, or widened gaps among the population. For example, if 10 percent of the population gains access to a BCI that multiplies their cognitive potential many times over, it wouldn’t take long for them to outproduce, out-earn, and otherwise dominate their technologically lagging contemporaries. Warming people up to the idea that they’re already cyborgs—and that newer enhancements wouldn’t compromise their sense of self and identity any more than existing devices and technology—could help decrease this gap, and help us roll out important new technologies faster.On some level, the argument is pedantic. The term “cyborg” doesn’t and possibly can’t have a formal, precise definition since there’s such a gray area in how we use technology. But we’re developing a world that’s about to be defined by technology, and if we can’t accurately assess and define our relationship with that technology, we’re never going to be able to harness it properly, let alone use it responsibly.Regardless of how you feel, there’s enough of an argument that humans are already cyborgs that technologists are already adopting the position—and that alone warrants a closer look, and an open mind to the possibilities. Related Posts Why IoT Apps are Eating Device Interfaces Follow the Puck
For all those efforts, who to blame is simple: Federer and his cohorts. They’ve made the final two rounds an exclusive club since Federer won his first Slam in 2003. He’s now won 18, while Rafael Nadal has 15, Novak Djokovic 12 and Stan Wawrinka and Murray three each. Since 2004, only four other men have won a major title, and only one for each: Gaston Gaudio, Marat Safin, Juan Martin del Potro and Marin Cilic, who will play against Querrey in Friday’s semifinals. These top players tend to make it to the semifinals before they lose, making it difficult for anyone, let alone an American, to reach the semis.From the beginning of 2005 through the French Open last month, Federer, Djokovic, Nadal and Murray accounted for 57 percent of all the Grand Slam semifinal slots. Querrey, as happy as can be, is being realistic about his chances.“Marin [Cilic] is ranked, like, five,” Querrey said. “He’s right outside of the big four. That’s going to be a tough one.”That’s about the only thing Querrey has done wrong so far: Cilic is ranked sixth.CORRECTION (July 14, 1:40 p.m.): A photo caption in an earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Querrey was the first American to reach a Slam semifinal this decade. He is the first American man to do so. A chart in this article also has been updated to clarify that the data pertains only to men’s tennis. WIMBLEDON, England — And on the 2,933rd day, an American man reached a Grand Slam semifinal.Sam Querrey, a 29-year-old from California, ousted defending champion Andy Murray at Wimbledon on Wednesday and became the first American man to reach the semifinals at a Grand Slam tournament since Andy Roddick here in 2009.Happiness rarely graces American men’s tennis these days. Fourteen years ago, Roddick won the U.S. Open. No American man has won a major since. Only one American male player besides Roddick has appeared in a major final since Roddick’s win: Andre Agassi, who lost to Roger Federer at the 2005 U.S. Open. Roddick played four more Grand Slam finals until 2009 and lost them all to Federer, including a heart-breaking five-set defeat at Wimbledon in 2009.Agassi retired after the 2006 U.S. Open. Roddick left the game on his 30th birthday in 2012 (less than three months older than Querrey is now). And no American man has broken into the elite ranks of men’s tennis since. Querrey is the first U.S. player to make his debut in a Slam semifinal since Robby Ginepri reached the final four of the 2005 U.S. Open. Getting to a semifinal took him forever: This was Querrey’s 42nd Grand Slam main draw, now a record for a first-time semifinalist in the Open era. By comparison, Agassi made his first Slam semifinal in 1988, less than two years after his first major appearance. In the next nine years, eight Americans would make their semifinal debuts.1 Aaron Krickstein, Michael Chang, Pete Sampras, David Wheaton, Jim Courier, Patrick McEnroe, Todd Martin and MaliVai Washington. A handful of superstars has usually dominated men’s tennis. For a while, the U.S. had one or two of them, sometimes even more. Lately it’s had none, in part because the sport has become more global. Since the end of 2005, 24 non-American men from 19 countries have reached a Grand Slam semifinal for the first time, including Ivan Ljubicic (Croatia), Kei Nishikori (Japan), Fernando Gonzalez (Chile), and Grigor Dimitrov (Bulgaria).The globalization of tennis has slowed down America year after year. In the early Open era, beginning in 1968, into the 1970s and ’80s, America led the world in tennis training, practice and equipment. American men won loads of Grand Slam titles from 1968 through the 1990s, when John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, Agassi, Pete Sampras and Jim Courier ruled. From 1990 to 1999, American men reached the semifinals or better 62 times at Grand Slams.All the while, though, foreign tennis training improved. By the time 2000 came along, diversity had climbed. American men reached the semifinals or better only 26 times from 2000 to 2009.And then, nothing. Players have rarely escaped the early rounds at the French Open, where clay feels foreign compared to American hard courts. Not that those hard courts help much. At the U.S. Open, American men haven’t looked like title contenders since Agassi and Roddick. The U.S. Tennis Association, so worried about that decline, has invested in a $63 million training center in Florida that has 100 courts.
Upon the conclusion of Monday night’s NCAA men’s basketball championship game – and as an aside, thank you, Louisville, for beating Michigan – many of my fellow Buckeyes immediately flipped their internal switches to the next sport on the docket – football. In Columbus, it seems we only have three seasons: football, March Madness and spring football, and despite Ohio State men’s basketball coach Thad Matta’s best efforts, the March Madness season is usually grouped together with winter football conditioning anyway. Such is life at a university that doubles as a football powerhouse. Be honest. I know what you were doing last night. You were sitting there, watching “One Shining Moment” put a nice little bow on the basketball season while you planned your road trip to Cincinnati for this weekend’s spring football game at Paul Brown Stadium. But stop. Stop it right now. Put Urban Meyer on the backburner for – gasp – two weeks. That’s it. I understand football is awesome. I love football. I love football more than my unborn future children, who will undoubtedly be twins and will undoubtedly be named Scarlett and Grayson. I’m not telling you to forget about football. I’m not telling you to bail on the Spring Game. But I am asking you, the OSU student who is probably wearing some article of OSU-branded clothing right now as you read this, to expand your taste palette a tad. Show that Buckeye loyalty exists outside the gates of Ohio Stadium and the Schottenstein Center. Challenge yourself to use these last two weeks of school and go watch a so-called “minor” sport here at OSU. Some of you, myself included, only have two more weeks left on this campus as a student. Use it wisely. Go see student-athletes who work just as hard as our football and basketball players but who receive a fraction of the glory and recognition. Take a few hours and watch senior attacker Logan Schuss and the No. 13 men’s lacrosse team in action at Jesse Owens Memorial Stadium. Come see the No. 5 ranked men’s tennis team, led by coach Ty Tucker, play a home match. Odds are you’ll see them win, because they haven’t lost at home in a decade. Yes, a decade. Take a trip to Buckeye Field and watch sophomore pitcher Alex DiDomenico dominate some hapless batter for the softball team. Come to Bill Davis Stadium and see redshirt senior pitcher Brad Goldberg do the same for the baseball team. Support the men’s and women’s golf and track teams. Show up for women’s tennis and rowing. Men’s volleyball, too. They’re all Buckeyes. They all deserve attention. You consider yourself a big Buckeye fan, right? Prove it. OSU doesn’t just play football and basketball. Come watch some of your fellow students do what they love. Come support some athletes who compete every bit as hard as junior quarterback Braxton Miller and junior guard Aaron Craft. There are 36 different varsity teams on this campus, and they all call themselves Buckeyes. Let them know this university’s fandom runs deeper than football and basketball. They deserve it.
Just after he signed a five-year deal at Camp Nou, Umtiti has now turned his head to Russia and the performance of the France international team there.Samuel Umtiti is now relaxed as he has already done everything he can for the near future – he is a part of the France team, he just signed a five-year contract extension with Barcelona, despite being linked with a move to Manchester United earlier this season, and is now in a relaxed mood.Winning the La Liga and Copa del Rey with the Catalan side, Umtiti will certainly play a key part in France’s participation in the tournament in Russia.Barca’s Umtiti out for weeks with broken bone George Patchias – September 13, 2019 Barcelona’s Samuel Umtiti has been ruled out for up to six weeks with a broken bone in his foot.Last week, Samuel Umtiti withdrew from…“Since my extension, I feel light, I can concentrate only on the field. I had already gone through that [transfers] in the European Championships. It was better to do so [in this way],” Umtiti said, according to Goal.“In this team, there are quite a few young players but some with experience. We must not force leadership. What makes the strength of this group is unity,” Umtiti added, addressing the international team.“We must play seriously but without pressure. We’re looking for landmarks, automatism. This is the purpose of the preparation.”
Gareth Southgate is ready for talks with the FA over a new deal after guiding the Three Lions to the World Cup semi-finals.Southgate and the FA agreed on a contract worth about £2.5 million a year, plus bonuses, to succeed Sam Allardyce in 2016. His current contract will run out in 2020 but has a built-in break option after the World Cup.A source close to the FA said: ‘Gareth is set to sign a new contract and both sides want to get a deal agreed quickly.’The option would have allowed the FA to replace Southgate on the cheap if he had failed to deliver on their expectations. But, after leading England to the nation’s best World Cup since Italia 90, Southgate is in a strong position, and the FA are keen to extend his deal.Crouch: Liverpool could beat Man United to Jadon Sancho Andrew Smyth – September 14, 2019 Peter Crouch wouldn’t be surprised to see Jadon Sancho end up at Liverpool one day instead of his long-term pursuers Manchester United.It could be worth up to £5m a year, including bonuses, to Southgate and ensure he will lead the country through the 2020 European Championship and the Qatar World Cup in 2022. The FA are also set to thrash out a settlement to release them from a £6m image rights contract.England players’ commercial work has been organized for the last decade by 1966 Entertainment, an outside agency whose contract runs until 2030.Following the World Cup in Russia, the FA want to work directly with England players rather than having to go through a third party for all sponsorship matters.A source close to the FA said: ‘It is in the interests of all parties to agree to a deal, so we need to come to a figure which compensates 1966 for loss of revenues.’
Antonio Valencia may likely leave Manchester United at the end of the season and is already negotiating with Inter Milan, according to reports in Italy.The approach towards the 33-year-old right-back had already been mentioned in Italy.Reports from Football Italia claims that talks over personal terms have already begun.Valencia will be a free agent when his contract at Old Trafford expires in June and he intends to walk away after 10 years at the club.Lukaku backed to beat Ronaldo in Serie A scoring charts Andrew Smyth – September 14, 2019 Former Inter Milan star Andy van der Meyde is confident Romelu Lukaku will outscore Cristiano Ronaldo in this season’s Serie A.The Ecuador international joined the Red Devils from Wigan in 2009 as a winger, but has transformed into an effective right-back.Although Manchester United do have an option to extend the contract by 12 months, it does not look as if they’re going to use it.Inter Milan are currently fighting for a place in the Champions League in the Serie A and may still qualify via the Europa League if they get their hands on the trophy.
4 22 Photos 2020 Volvo XC60 T8 Polestar Engineered first drive: Almost Super Trouper More From Roadshow Comments 2020 BMW M340i review: A dash of M makes everything better Car Industry Electric Cars Diesel Cars Tags If something is directly contributing to pollution and public health problems, you’d probably want to cut it out entirely rather than simply reducing it. That’s the underlying idea behind Amsterdam’s impending vehicle and motorcycle ban.The city of Amsterdam will ban both gas and diesel variants of cars and motorcycles starting in 2030. The reason behind this is pretty simple: air quality. As Reuters notes in its report, the Netherlands’ air pollution is “worse than European rules permit,” much of which is due to the sheer quantity of cars and motorcycles in its cities. It’s not just some invisible specter, either. As air quality lessens, it can adversely affect people’s health, especially among children, the sick and the elderly. “Pollution often is a silent killer and is one of the greatest health hazards in Amsterdam,” said Sharon Dijksma, Amsterdam’s traffic councilor, when announcing the plans.Enlarge ImageClean air and water are occasionally nice things to have. ElOjoTorpe/Getty Images Like many other similar bans, it’ll happen in stages. The first is supposed to arrive next year, when Amsterdam will ban diesel cars that are more than 15 years old, preventing them from entering the area within the A10 ring road around the city center. In 2022, non-zero-emission buses will be banned, and in 2025, the ban will grow to include pleasure craft (Amsterdam has waterways, too) and mopeds. By 2030, if a vehicle emits anything from the tailpipe, it won’t be welcome.It will require a monumental effort to prepare Amsterdam on the current timeline. The Guardian notes that, in addition to encouraging city residents to buy new electric or hydrogen vehicles, Amsterdam will need to install between 13,000 and 20,000 charging stations by 2025 in order to ensure everybody has access to electricity.While it’s a noble cause, not everyone is on board with the idea. The Rai Association, lobbyists for the automotive industry, lambasted the plan in a statement to The Guardian, saying that requiring its citizens to spend money on expensive electric cars will make Amsterdam “a city of the rich.” Electric cars are slowly decreasing in price as time goes on, but they are still generally more expensive than internal-combustion counterparts.Cities and countries across Europe have flirted with the idea of certain kinds of vehicle bans in an effort to improve air quality. Back in 2017, both France and the UK said they hoped to eliminate gas and diesel vehicle sales by 2040. In 2018, a German court ruled that individual cities were allowed to implement these kinds of bans, and at least one city has signaled the intent to do exactly that. Share your voice 2019 Mazda CX-5 diesel is rated for 30 mpg highway 2020 Hyundai Palisade review: Posh enough to make Genesis jealous
Katherine Streeter for NPREditor’s Note:This story was originally published in November 2016 and has been republished with updates.It’s the sixth annual #GivingTuesday — a holiday marketing tradition inspired by Black Friday, Small Business Saturday and Cyber Monday, but with a twist. Today thousands of charities are asking us to open our wallets. But how can we be sure the group we donate to is effective — that we’re getting the most bang for our charity buck?That question was vexing Elie Hassenfeld several years ago. He worked at a hedge fund, and he and a colleague wanted to give money to charity. Since they are numbers-oriented finance types, they wanted to maximize the results from their donation by finding groups that could offer the biggest impact per dollar.“We were shocked by how little useful information was available,” says Hassenfeld.Sure there were the rating sites that show how much a given charity spends on overhead and point up any red flags suggesting possible mismanagement.But that’s not what Hassenfeld wanted to know: There was “nothing that said, ‘this is how much a charity can accomplish with the donation that you give.’ “And so in 2007, Hassenfeld and his friend, Holden Karnofsky, decided to start a nonprofit called GiveWell. The mission: Come up with an annual short list of charities they can recommend based on hard evidence. But it turns out this data-driven approach has its own set of issues.First off, it means GiveWell has to limit itself to recommending charities for which there is scientific proof of effectiveness.“Randomized controlled trials [by academics and health organizations] of, for example, distributing malaria nets in Africa to see how consistently and how effectively that reduces cases of malaria and saves lives,” says Hassenfeld.According to GiveWell’s analysis, passing out $5 bed nets against malaria-carrying mosquitoes saves a lot of lives. And that puts Against Malaria Foundation at the top of the group’s nine picks for the 2017 giving season — just unveiled on its website.The organization’s data-driven approach leads to a list that may not sit well with all donors. For instance, many people feel particularly moved to help others who are close to home – say, by donating to a local homeless shelter or a youth arts program. But though GiveWell is based in the United States, the organization does not recommend donating to any charities that serve Americans.“The needs are just so great overseas that a dollar goes a lot further there,” explains Hassenfeld. For instance, he says, “donating something like $3,500 to Against Malaria Foundation saves the life of a child who would otherwise die of malaria. The equivalent amount [in the United States] would do something like pay for a couple months of schooling for one child.”A second challenge is the dearth of reliable data for many programs that focus on the world’s poorest. While academics and international health organizations have done rigorous studies of health interventions, it’s only in the last decade that economic development and empowerment programs have started being subjected to similar scrutiny.So says Hassenfeld, “there might be outstanding programs and organizations that we would recommend if only there were more evidence assessing their impact. The fact that we don’t recommend something doesn’t mean we think it’s ineffective.” It may just mean that no one has studied it.That had been the case with one of two new charities on GiveWell’s 2017 list: Evidence Action’s No Lean Season. The group provides no-interest loans to help farmers in Bangladesh migrate to the city for better paid work during the “lean season” when they’re waiting to harvest their crops. Hassenfeld says GiveWell had been intrigued by the charity’s work for several years but it’s only this year that he feels there is sufficient data to support a recommendation.Also, the charities that make GiveWell’s cut aren’t exactly household names. Take the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative.“Yes, schistosomiasis — it’s an intestinal worm,” says Hassenfeld.He’s very passionate on the subject. The worm is common among children in sub-Saharan Africa, causing cognitive and physical development delays, he notes. And according to GiveWell’s analysis, Schistosomiasis Control Initiative can de-worm a kid for just 50 cents.“When the worms are treated children may grow up to earn significantly more money in adulthood,” says Hassenfeld. “So a very small amount of money may have really, really large long-term effects.”But Hassenfeld’s argument for supporting schistosomiasis work points up a third issue with a data-driven approach to donation decisions. Social science research suggests rational, statistics-based appeals are not what motivate most people. Tell us about one child who needs our help and we’re sold. Rattle off numbers about an obscure disease in a faraway place and a lot of us start to feel overwhelmed and turned off.Hassenfeld doesn’t disagree. “If my goal were to try to maximize the amount of money that I was able to raise for charity I wouldn’t do it via numbers and analysis,” he says. “I would do it via pictures and stories.”But he says GiveWell is trying to appeal to a narrower slice of the donor pool, “a particular type of person who’s just thinking about their charitable giving in a very different way.” For them, the very obscurity of schistosomiasis is a draw. “They say, ‘This is not sexy, I haven’t heard about this and here’s a group that’s done the analysis and they say this is one of the best ways I can donate and accomplish a ton of good.’ “In just nine years GiveWell has convinced about 14,000 people — largely technology and finance professionals under age 40, like the group’s founders, to donate a total of more $100 million dollars to the charities it has selected.Still, at least one of the charities on GiveWell’s list is starting re-think the data-based pitch for donations.It’s a fairly new group called GiveDirectly, launched in 2009. (We ran an in-depth story on their work that you can read here.) And basically, it wants to take your cash and just hand it over to an extremely poor person. No strings attached. The beneficiary can spend the money however he or she sees fit.That idea can be a tough case to make, says Ian Bassin, who manages donor relations for GiveDirectly among other duties.“I mean we are asking people to do something that I think most people instinctively psychologically are resistant to.”But he adds that GiveDirectly is motivated by cold hard facts: “It turns out that rigorous scientific evidence over the last ten to fifteen years has shown that actually giving people the power of choice to decide what their priorities are is one of the most effective ways to help the poor.”Maybe they end up spending the money on school tuition for a school. Maybe they decide to install a new roof that saves them expensive continual repairs. The point is, studies show that extremely poor people often know their needs best, and when you just give them the cash, over the long haul incomes rise, hunger goes down, there’s even more gender equality.Give Directly was founded by four economists who were inspired by those findings. At first they wanted to make their case to donors just on the numbers. They were determined to avoid what Bassin calls “poverty porn — people putting a picture of a starving child on a video [or] infomercial.”In just a few years they’ve raised more than $130 million dollars.But last fall they unveiled a new feature on their website: a running list of photos and profiles of the beneficiaries. To expand further, they’ve concluded that they need to reach a broader audience.“There’s a limit to how many of the sort of wonky evidence-type based donors that we could have,” Bassin explains.Copyright 2017 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/. Share
Altice USA Pools Cheddar, i24 News Resources to Expand U.S. Coverage Cheddar Acquired by Cable Operator Altice USA for $200 Million CuriosityStream launched in 2015 as the brainchild of Hendricks, the founder of cable’s Discovery Channel. The service offers an array of documentary and factual programming for $3 a month or $20 a year.John Hendricks, Founder and Chairman of CuriosityStream, commented: “Today, consumers are beginning to view on-demand streaming services that dependably deliver movies, general television entertainment and factual content, such as Netflix, Hulu and CuriosityStream respectively, as standard viewing requirements. It is only natural that forward-leaning distributors such as Altice USA are finding ways to bundle top streaming services into their universal customer offerings.”CuriosityStream content will also be added to Altice’s roster of on-demand programming distributed via its set-top boxes.“With today’s announcement, nearly 5 million more households will be treated to thousands of the world’s best factual programs across all non-fiction genres including science, nature, history, technology, current events, lifestyles, human adventure, and more,” said Clint Stinchcomb, CuriosityStream president and CEO, Related Altice USA has set a deal with John Hendricks’ CuriosityStream to expand distribution of the science- and history-focused subscription streaming service.The deal will make CuriosityStream available to all Altice USA’s 4.9 million customers across 21 states, including a big cluster serving New York and Connecticut. Altice also plans to add the CuriosityStream app to its digital operating system.“We’re always looking at ways to enrich the customer experience, which is why we are pleased to bring CuriosityStream’s rich 4K visuals and storytelling to our Optimum and Suddenlink customers as a value-added benefit,” said Hakim Boubazine, Altice USA co-president and chief operating officer. “Whether through traditional video or digital streaming offerings, our platform enables the delivery of all types of content to our customers so they can access what they want, when they want it.” ×Actors Reveal Their Favorite Disney PrincessesSeveral actors, like Daisy Ridley, Awkwafina, Jeff Goldblum and Gina Rodriguez, reveal their favorite Disney princesses. Rapunzel, Mulan, Ariel,Tiana, Sleeping Beauty and Jasmine all got some love from the Disney stars.More VideosVolume 0%Press shift question mark to access a list of keyboard shortcutsKeyboard Shortcutsplay/pauseincrease volumedecrease volumeseek forwardsseek backwardstoggle captionstoggle fullscreenmute/unmuteseek to %SPACE↑↓→←cfm0-9Next UpJennifer Lopez Shares How She Became a Mogul04:350.5x1x1.25×1.5x2xLive00:0002:1502:15 Popular on Variety
Explore further Journal information: Science Morality clearly plays a role in modern society, in many instances, it might even be cited as one of the prime preventers of chaos—people see, hear and engage in things that they deem moral, or immoral, and tend to respond in certain ways because of it. But because of its ephemeral nature, scientists have had difficulty not only defining and measuring it but perhaps more importantly, finding the ways in which it works in people and in society as a whole. In this latest effort, the researchers sought to learn more about how morality works by periodically asking people directly about their observations, feelings and acts.In the experiment, 1,252 people found via social media, agreed to download an app to their phone that allowed the researchers to query them at random times regarding moral acts they engaged in or witnessed during the prior hour, how it made them feel and how they responded. Text messages were sent to the volunteers and received from them over a period of three days. Afterwards, the researchers analyzed the 13,240 messages they’d received from the volunteers to see if they could spot patterns, trends or other pertinent information.Among the host of findings, the team discovered that those who considered themselves religious didn’t necessarily commit more or less moral or immoral acts than those who did not. They also found that people who were the target of a moral act tended to feel better about themselves than did those who committed a moral act themselves—and those same people tended to also be more likely to commit a moral act later on—social scientists call it moral contagion.The researchers also found evidence that suggests political affiliation had an impact on morality as well—those of a liberal persuasion, for example, tended to focus more on fairness between people, while those who saw themselves as more conservative tended to respond more strongly to acts of respecting authority or the status quo.The study marks a new foray into sociological testing techniques using new technology and might just be one of many to come that seek to better define the rules by which people behave in society. (Phys.org) —A team of researchers with members from the U.S., Germany and the Netherlands has uncovered some new ideas about the nature of morality by using a smartphone app. In their paper published in the journal Science, the researchers describe how they enlisted a large group of people to serve as volunteers in a morality experiment, and what they learned as a result. Jesse Graham, of the University of Southern California offers a Perspective piece in the same journal issue. Citation: Smartphone app used by experimenters to learn more about aspects of morality (2014, September 12) retrieved 18 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-09-smartphone-app-experimenters-aspects-morality.html Image of the Smartphone Experience-Sampling Signal (SMS linking to smartphone survey). Credit: Wilhelm Hofmann More information: Morality in everyday life, Science 12 September 2014: Vol. 345 no. 6202 pp. 1340-1343 DOI: 10.1126/science.1251560 ABSTRACTThe science of morality has drawn heavily on well-controlled but artificial laboratory settings. To study everyday morality, we repeatedly assessed moral or immoral acts and experiences in a large (N = 1252) sample using ecological momentary assessment. Moral experiences were surprisingly frequent and manifold. Liberals and conservatives emphasized somewhat different moral dimensions. Religious and nonreligious participants did not differ in the likelihood or quality of committed moral and immoral acts. Being the target of moral or immoral deeds had the strongest impact on happiness, whereas committing moral or immoral deeds had the strongest impact on sense of purpose. Analyses of daily dynamics revealed evidence for both moral contagion and moral licensing. In sum, morality science may benefit from a closer look at the antecedents, dynamics, and consequences of everyday moral experience. © 2014 Phys.org How do former churchgoers build a new moral identity? This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.